¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 NUET has been bottled up within Larry for too long. I’m composing directly in my Nuet’s Nodes blog, instead of first drafting in ECCO or NoteMap. Enough of this small-talk.

¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 WTF is happening in GAIA?  Can “we” do something about the trends and nudge us in another direction? Maybe more than a nudge;  maybe a leap beyond conventional imagination.

¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 I am extremely frustrated by the ENORMOUS GAP between
(1) the current “state” of humankind, and
(2) the vast potentials of Humanity/GAIA. I can find no person able to dialog on the distinction between humankind and humanity; but I haven’t asked for that dialog, specifically.

¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 There appear two, seemingly contradictory, aspects about humankind:
(1) an extraordinary inertia and resistance to fundamental change, and
(2) the potential to seemingly seamlessly shift epistemes.
Humankind is now at the cusp of this challenge.

¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 WHAT WILL IT TAKE?  to do what?

¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 Most humans haven’t learned/developed competencies for navigating sysnets (actually: sysnets within/of sysnets, etc. – the “cognitive architecture” of what we need has yet to be created/discovered).

¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 “SYSNETS” is a label I have coined for “conceptual schemes” that “weave” both organizing structures: systems and networks.  I have yet to discover any articles discussing these distinctions and relationships. As a crude draft, I have proposed that systems contain a primitive network of components and relationships, to which are added “constraints”, to make them “systems”. But, there is much more to this distinction and the cognitive forms we use.

¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 I have also attempted to distinguish “systems” from “holarchies” (of nested “systems”). I propose four cognitive structures for our “organizing of reality”: systems, networks, holarchies, ecologies.

¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 THIS, brings my attention to the continuing confusion, by the very best minds, between
(1) hypothesized external/objective realities, and
(2) our woven/subjective conceptual schemes within our personal mind/brains [AND in the material literature (semfields) that provides our collective contexts].

¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 THESE ISSUES cannot be adequately seafed (supported/enabled/augmented/facilitated- why are these nu terms essential?) with our best info technology (which seriously constrains our DDD {Dialog/Discourse/Deciding}).

¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 I AM EXTREMELY LIMITED,
as is every human, including YOU!

¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 WE, every human person MUST ACCEPT that they cannot be the primary determiner/decider of “what is best”. NO ONE CAN.  Yet,  how can we, now, submit to untested “collective systems”. Our challenge is to engage in PROCESS.  Process that are NOT committed to “final end states”, but are open to creative emergence.

¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 I, “nuet” rambles, but what else can “I” do?  “Conceptual Reality” has the architecture of a “sysnet of sysnets of sysnets …”. We delude ourselves when we believe that our “little, finite, logically consistent expressions” have “objective meaning” independent of alternative contexts.

¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 I am compelled, here, to comment on my use of “”quotes”””. I function within the belief/context that NO WORDS/TERMS HAVE FIXED/OBJECTIVE MEANINGS/DEFINITIONS.” I spontaneously add “quotes” when I “sense” the need to specify.

My “ideal” “sem presentation system” (text app) would include a clickable window for every term/word, or for those most relevant. The clicked window would  attempt to specify the unique “glossary usage” of the term in this specific context.

¶ 16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 I also recommend the use of parentheses

¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 This is consistent with Doug Hofstadter  (  ).

NEED

¶ 18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 We must liberate ourselves from our lock-ins (Platt).

¶ 19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 (1) Our Apps and Social Media.

¶ 20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 (2) Our addiction to routines of conversation, dialog, linear discourse, tradition, etc.

¶ 21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 (3) Creatively Emergently Collectively Engage (CECE) in OLLO  (  ), a process transcending our very best “education” to “UPLIFT”.  Our contemporary “patterns of interactivity” are grossly inadequate to our NEEDS.

¶ 22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 0 (4) Admit to and Accept our personal limitations, and assets.  Cease trying to be the center of “All Reality”.  Yet, recognize and galdee our unique contribution to humankind’s transition to Humanity/GAIA.  Open yourself to Creative Emergence.

¶ 23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 0 CLOSURE  032618 5:37PM PST

¶ 24 Leave a comment on paragraph 24 0